July 24, 2014

New Jersey Supreme Court Reinforces Right to Jury Trial in Civil Cases

In a decision that broadly construes the right of trial by jury in civil cases guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution, the Supreme Court of New Jersey invalidated a provision in the Underground Facility Protection Act (UFPA) that precludes trial by jury for certain claims arising under the statute.

The Court has long recognized that New Jersey’s Constitution guarantees a jury trial right only to the extent it existed at common law when the Constitution was adopted, and that only the Legislature can confer the right to a jury trial in a cause of action that did not exist at common law.  Typically, there is no right to a jury trial for purely statutory causes of action unless the statute provides such a right.  In Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Utilities Co., decided January 24, 2013, the Court held that the State Constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury for a statutory cause of action that is rooted in the common law.

The Legislature enacted the UFPA in recognition of the potential hazards posed by underground utility lines.  The statute creates a “One-Call Damage Prevention System” which serves as a central repository for the receipt of notices of intent to excavate, and which forwards the notices to the appropriate utility.  The UFPA requires that, within three days of receipt of such notice, an operator of an underground facility “[m]ark, stake, locate or otherwise provide the position and number of its underground facilities which may be affected by a planned excavation or demolition.”  In addition to imposing significant penalties on those who disregard its mandates, the UFPA also imposes liability on the excavator for any negligent damage to a utility’s underground facilities.  In cases where the damage claim is less than $25,000, the statute mandates a binding alternate dispute resolution process; when more than $25,000 is at issue the statute permits, but does not require, such binding arbitration.

The issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Utilities Co. is whether the statutory provision imposing liability on an excavator for negligent damage caused to a utility’s underground facilities should be treated as a statutory cause of action in which case the Legislature may withhold the right to a jury trial, or whether it should be regarded as a common law cause of action subject to the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury.

Finding that the core of a cause of action under UFPA is whether the excavator failed to exercise a duty of ordinary care as established by the statute, the Supreme Court analyzed both the historical basis of the cause of action and the relief sought.  The Court determined that the Legislature contemplated that principles of common law negligence would underlie this statutory cause of action.  While the statute establishes the governing standard of care, the underlying cause of action is in the nature of a classic negligence action rooted in common law principles.  The Court thus held that the mandatory binding arbitration provision of the statute is unconstitutional because, while the Legislature may mandate alternative dispute resolution, it must also provide a right to a trial de novo before a jury.

Businesses involved in litigation often seek to avoid trial by jury, believing that juries may be unsympathetic to business interests.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v Melcar Utilities Co. strongly reinforces the right to trial by jury in civil litigation.

© 2014 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Paul H. Schneider, GIordano Law Firm, Litigation Attorney

Mr. Schneider, co-chair of the Litigation Practice Area, focuses his practice in environmental, redevelopment, land use, regulatory, real estate and affordable housing law, and litigation. Mr. Schneider also handles a wide variety of redevelopment matters as well as corporate and commercial litigation. In addition to handling major litigation before both the state and federal courts and the Office of Administrative Law, he has extensive experience before the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Appellate Division.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.